From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-428986-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 13947 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2013 15:42:15 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 13884 invoked by uid 48); 4 Sep 2013 15:42:13 -0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/58201] [4.9 Regression] Undefined reference to `B::B(void const**)'
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:42:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-58201-4-Ax7clU4lRT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-58201-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-58201-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00226.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58201

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
In C++ destructors don't have parameters, so the question is where the bogusly
mangled name comes from.  Is that coming from the implicit this argument that
is somehow used again in the mangling (though that would be the class *const,
wouldn't it)?